“We, (Liberals/Progressives), are dead wrong on this issue… Please take the advice of a 100% Progressive ally who happens to understand guns and the “gun culture”… What we are doing here is wrong and it won’t help, unless you have some longer term agenda of eliminating guns as does the Brady group and others. The right to bear arms is a personal individual right. We should not attempt to infringe upon it by restricting law abiding citizens…I am saddened by these terrible events as much as anyone else but if we want to address these events we need to look for another way… There are already more than enough gun laws on the books, making more does nothing positive…. An assault weapons or magazine ban is nothing more than some useless Liberal trophy… It is a terrible move… All we are doing is restricting individual rights of law abiding citzens… You are being as foolish as the right wing nut jobs who’s politics you oppose… Get your head out of your butt.” ” — 1NewDay
Found this on Newsvine.com this morning. It’s the forum run by NBC News and attached to the bottom of their news articles on MSN…
“Let me just start out by saying I am a huge Obama supporter and 100% progressive. (well. maybe 99.9%)
“We, (Liberals/Progressives), are dead wrong on this issue and many of my cohorts are behaving just like the RWNJs in regard to the gun issue. The reason is that most of you are uneducated regarding guns and buy into the rhetoric you hear. Let’s talk about some of this.
“I’ve been hearing in recent days quotes saying that 40% of all gun sales happen without background checks. Some versions claim some number similar as to the sales by “private gun dealers” at gun shows via the “gun show loop hole”. So let me ask this question. How do you come up with this number? Private sales are not recorded anywhere. The only factual data we have is through the number of background checks done and the sales data from legal FFL dealers. We have no data about private sales. None, absolutely zero. Mr. Rogers is wrong the vast majority of the time regarding his politics, but he is right about this issue. I go to a lot of gun shows. I believe his 1% estimate is pretty close to reality. For one thing, private dealers ask far too much money for their used guns. You can go a couple tables over to a FFL dealer, go through a background check and buy the same gun, brand new for 10-20% less.
“Know, I personally know a number of individuals who have and can pass background checks, who will pay the premium from a private dealer for one simple reason. They believe that the background check is in fact a secret form of registration. Despite the fact this data is not supposed to be retained, we know that in this computer age, no data ever disappears. They may be right. They fear that at some point, that record of their ownership will be used against them to confiscate their weapons. Personally, I don’t see that happening, however I can’t with 100% assurance say that they couldn’t possibly be right.
“Another typical sale through a private dealer is some older unique and out of production guns. Some of these have pretty high collector value. If you get into this stuff, some of these are highly desireable. Generally, these are not anything like “assault weapons”.
“I will also point out that these gun shows are crawling with law enforcement officers and even BATF agents have been known to frequent these. Most that I have been to are in venues that have security cameras. You can bet that everybody there has been recorded on camera. This is not a place that any known criminal type wants to be at.
“Now, that said, I have seen people who are obviously foreign born, and could potentially be illegals, who are visiting these tables. Doesn’t mean they are doing anything wrong and may in fact be completely legal. But I can see that it may be an avenue for illegals to purchase a gun. That said though, most of these “private dealers” leave the shows packing up most of what they brought with them and sometimes even more because they bought something a customer brought in.
“I have often speculated that these guys ask premium prices for the simple fact that they can sell without a background check. And I suspect it may be possible that some sale occurs elsewhere in the Denny’s parking lot after some agreement is made at the show. It is possible. However, I can with 100% assuredness state that nowhere approaching 40% of gun show sales comes from these private sales. If you don’t believe me just go to a gun show. Bottom line this 40% number or any other such number is pure speculation. It is somebody’s guess and it is a guess that is designed to create some kind of public outcry.
“Now lets talk about “military assault weapons”. The weapons we are talking about are not military weapons despite the rhetoric I hear from trusted progressive sources. These are not “weapons of war”. They look like them, but they are not. The internals are completely different. These guns are technically no different than many modern hunting guns. Same technology, same calibers. But they look mean. There is a military weapon many from the Viet Nam era remember. It is called the M-14. But because these have a very traditional look and wooden stocks, most novices wouldn’t call it an assualt rifle. However, the M-14 is an older, far more deadly caliber than the standard AR-15. Columbine occurred during the assault weapons ban. Two different weapons used were guns that were re-designed and/or created to meet the criteria of a non-assualt gun. They had 10 round magazines. However, in such a mass shooting scenario, these were every bit as effective as the banned weapons.
“Lets talk about high capacity magazines. It takes no more than two seconds to swap magazines. A skilled shooter can do it in less. Virtually uninterrupted fire capability if you have spare magazines. Now high capacity magazines do offer an advantage when someone is shooting back, because that two seconds can make a difference. But in the mass shooting situations it makes no difference. You can point to the Gifford shooting and say that when the shooter was trying to change magazines, that’s when he was tackled and stopped. True but he was tackled from behind while right in the midst of numerous people. The shooter put himself in a vulnerable position and could have just as easily been stopped with a full magazine under those circumstances. I seriously doubt his need to swap magazines really made much difference.
“And lets talk about 100 round drum magazines. These are a joke, they don’t work. The Aurora shooter had one. It jammed making the gun inoperable after firing about 20 rounds. The fact that he had one of these actually saved lives by turning his gun into a club. The fact is that the larger the magazine, the more likely it is to fail. 30 round magazines are about the limit of reasonably reliable magazines. Even then, cheap knock-offs are pretty unreliable. High capacity magazines only work well when matched and “tuned” to the specific cartridge being fired. Note the military doesn’t use 100 round drums. They’d get too many good guys killed. They use 30 round maximum magazines, with very specific ammunition. They do this for reliability.
“I hear people say, “nobody needs more than 10 rounds to kill a deer.” True, but it has nothing to do with the issue. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. This is a baseless argument.
“So who needs high capacity magazines? Why should they exist? There are a couple reasons. One is practical for target and sport shooting. Reloading empty magazines with fresh bullets is a tedious job. It is hard on the fingers and takes time. Spare magazines whether 10 rounds or 30 cost very close to the same to purchase, (at least right now). A lot of target shooters load up their spare magazines ahead of time. Saves time and effort at the range. Note too that a fail to feed problem isn’t a very big deal at the range target shooting. Reliability isn’t a big deal under these circumstances. Now you may say this is a dumb reason, but if you are speaking from inexperience, you have little room to judge.
“So now let’s talk about another reason. Self defense. Now most people view a self defense scenario as some individual trying to rob you on the street or breaking into you house. And in fact that is pretty typical. Most semi-auto pistols or shotguns serve this purpose reasonable well with a standard magazine. However there is the potential for multiple assailants. Not that there is a need to be carrying an AR-15 on city streets, but there are very real home defense scenarios where this is reasonable. I’ll just add that city environments and country environments are different. In cities, often law enforcement authorities are just a couple minutes away. In country environments, a half hour delay in getting help is not at all uncommon.
“You can say that the odds of a dozen attackers at your rural home are pretty unlikely. But maybe not so unlikely as you think. There are a lot of scenarios that make a lawless environment very possible. We have even seen this is city environments after some natural disasters. After Katrina, there were multiple reports of bands of criminals raiding and looting. I’m am not a doomsday prepper, but I see the very real possibility that things could get ugly very quickly. I’m an electrical engineer with very good knowledge of the electrical grid. I can tell you that the possibility of a major grid failure that lasts for weeks is a very real possibility. This could come from a variety of natural disasters or even a terrorist attack. Look at hurricane Sandy. There are still areas without power. Now you may not see that as a big threat in the urban environment flooded with law enforcement. But wipe out power for weeks or longer in rural environments where police only get there long after crimes are committed under normal circumstances. The so called “assault rifle” with a 30 round magazine offers the ability to quickly grab a weapon with adequate ammunition to counter multiple attackers. In such a scenario, you may not have time to open up your ammo safe and grab extra ammo. You take the gun and seek better shelter. You can blow this off as some kind of imaginative movie script, but you are a fool if you don’t see this as a very real possibility.
“I won’t argue that there is limited need if you live in upper Manhattan or Chicago’s Gold Coast, but that doesn’t apply everywhere.
“Additionally if you live in rural areas with land and maybe raise livestock of some kind, the “assault rifle” is a very important practical tool. The AR-15 .223 round isn’t considered a good deer round, but it is effective against predators and “varmints”. You may not need 10 rounds or more to kill a deer while hunting, but when a pack of coyotes are ripping up your chicken coop in the middle of the night, your goal is not to scare them off, but to kill them. To expend a dozen rounds or more trying to take out four or five coyotes is very realistic. You can joke about this or make light of it, but if you haven’t experienced it, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Coyotes, wolves, bears, and mountain lions generally don’t roam the city and even if they did, shooting them with a rifle would be pretty stupid. But it is far different in many parts of the country. Not that country folk randomly shoot at these animals, but they can and do pose a real threat to ones livelihood as well as one’s personal safety.
“I don’t buy the idea that I might need such weapons to overthrow an unjust government, but I might need them to defend myself against some RWNJs who think they should. You may think this is all fantasy, but if you do, you must not read much. You can think that foreign countries are a completely different situation, and in many ways they are. But much of what we read in the papers today starts with a bunch of radicals who think they can change things with force. Don’t think anybody in this country thinks that way? You must have been in a coma for the last decade or so.
“Many of us keep a fire extinguisher or two in our homes. It’s not because we are planning on a fire or even because we think it is something very likely to occur. But we keep them just in case. We have them so in the unlikely event that we do need them, we might have a chance to save our home before the fire department gets there. Similarly, these tend to be more important in rural environments because usually by the time help arrives, the home is a total loss. In some ways it is similar. It is about evaluating the possible threats and being prepared for them. No doubt, the threats are different in different environments.
“I know this is already pretty long, but let’s talk about polling for a bit. The latest Washington Post poll is a joke. First off, they cherry picked data. Second the data is flawed. Let me point out a few flaws. In fact if you look at all the data, some gun control opinions actually have gone the other way over time than what the selected data points indicate. Of the 1001 respondents, a third again more were Democrats than Republicans. They don’t say where the respondents live. This could be huge. This is a hard item to be truly random on. Already many states have some restrictions that they talk about. Additionally, there is very poor knowledge about what current gun law is. Even many gun owners don’t have a clue in this regard. Maybe you think the current gun laws are working fine in your area, but if you don’t really know what they are, how could you answer the question accurately? Also, I’ll suggest that any number of gun owners may be rather hesitant to answer a phone poll like this. How do I know that you aren’t some criminal trying to figure out if I own guns so you can think about stealing them? If I worry about my government secretly trying to steal my guns, (I personally don’t, but many do), I’m going to be really careful about what I say or just decline to be polled, who knows really who is asking? It isn’t at all clear either just what type environments these respondents live in either. They did ask some identification about urban vs. rural, but I know people who live in subdivisions who think it is rural. Self identification is flawed. In an issue such as this with such widely varied views across different states and different environments, 1000 people is not going to be appropriately representative. Others of my educated Liberal friends who know anything about statistics and polling know the truth in what I am saying. Keep in mind that this and the other Frank Lutz poll data thrown around lately were in fact looking for certain results based upon who commissioned them. I’ll just add that before you bank on this data, remember the right wing driven polls that recently had all the RWNJs convinced there was no way Obama could win??? I know a lot of gun owners on both sides of the aisle and I can assure you that not one has changed their minds on these issues. No doubt some on the far left are re-energized, but getting louder doesn’t mean opinions evolved.
“Let’s briefly talk about the 2nd Amendment. Most important to remember, this is in the Bill of Rights which is about personal, individual rights. There were a number of influences on the Bill of Rights, but the most significant stemmed from the English Bill or Rights dating back 100 years prior. Additional influences came from the Articles of Confederation, the anti-Federalist papers and some Colonies original rights expressed in various documents. As to the 2nd Amendment, the root of this is in the English Bill of Rights. Prior to that enactment, Protestants were forbidden from owning guns and in fact the King had tried to disarm them. In this way this was an individual right based on the grounds of being able to defend one’s self. The part about a well regulated militia come from the Virginia Declaration of Rights. This was about not having a standing army but allowing the States to have their own militias. They anti-Federalists saw a standing army as a problem too and wanted a government more based on States rights. This is where the idea that the 2nd Amendment is there to be able to overthrow the government. That is a flawed view. The rest of the Constitution protected against a tyrannical government because of the processes described. The anti-Federalists originally viewed the Bill of Rights as a limitation on Federal powers in favor of State’s rights. It wasn’t. When taken in complete context it was solely about individual rights with the only reference otherwise being the cryptic statement about militias. This was furthermore illustrated by creation of the 14th Amendment later.
“I have no doubt, the 2nd Amendment was worded just a bit cryptically to satisfy the opposing concerns of the different players at the time. That is typical of some things in the Constitution. But the bottom line it allowed the protected citizens to own guns for their own defense. It should also be noted that there was no restriction about what kind of arms. In fact it allowed for the most technically advanced weapons of the time. Some today suggest they meant muzzle loading muskets. But the facts are that a variety of guns existed, some considerably more effective than others. Breech loading weapons existed before this and even some with primitive “cartridges’. Smooth bore muskets were the most widely used, however, they were hardly the most advanced. The Kentucky rifle with its long rifled barrel was a big advantage in range and killing power over the old muskets. Cannons and mortars were common. The 2nd Amendment made no restrictions on the type of weapon.
“Not too long after, the advent of the percussion cap made guns much more efficient and “all weather”, and about twenty years later the first repeating weapons appeared, some with self contained cartridges. These were major advances in guns, not so far different that semi-automatic weapons. No one viewed these as something beyond what the 2nd Amendment allowed. The Civil War saw a wide variety of guns and in 1861, the Gatling gun appeared which was basically the first machine gun. True Semi-autos and full automatics appeared in 1885 less than 100 years after the Bill of Rights were written. But it wasn’t until the 1930s that Federal gun regulations came into being as a result of the criminal gangs of the day that emerged during the era of prohibition and the depression. Until that time, the 2nd Amendment was viewed as being subject to no major restrictions. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was the first real regulating legislation. For the most part it didn’t really ban anything with the exception of sawed off shotguns as described in the law. It approached automatic weapons, not with a ban, but with a tax and regulations. In 1968, Congress used its power to regulate interstate commerce to control out of state gun purchases. It wasn’t until 1986 that felons were prohibited from possessing guns.
“The point is that few challenges to the 2nd Amendment existed for a long time and Congress was very careful how they went about doing it, avoiding direct 2nd Amendment challenges. The Supreme Court has upheld the 2nd Amendment as to allow a right to own weapons for self defense. They have suggested that some regulation with good cause may be acceptable. The “assault weapons” and magazines bans were not good laws when first enacted. They did nothing but make more money for the gun makers. They saved no lives that can be in any way documented or even suggested. Crime went up rather than down.
“The President suggesting these bans be re-instituted is a waste of time. I don’t see them passing either with a Republican controlled House. The President avoided suggesting laws about mental illness because he knows it would either be counter productive or a violation of individual rights, to address anyone who doesn’t have some legal judgement against them regarding their mental state. I haven’t yet read the executive orders, but I doubt that any will push Constitutional limits. It would be absolutely foolish to waste political capital on this issue. The bottom line is that when legislation eventually gets proposed, this will only serve to set back the Progressive agenda for years to come. It will cost Democrats seats in Congress. It is completely misguided for those of us who are all about personal individual rights. The right to bear arms is a personal individual right. We should not attempt to infringe upon it by restricting law abiding citizens. Instead we need to address the real issue which is disturbed individuals in our society who act out in violent ways. We need to make mental health help more available and we need to do so without stigmatizing it. Doing so will only keep already troubled people from seeking help. What we are doing here is wrong and it won’t help, unless you have some longer term agenda of eliminating guns as does the Brady group and others. But that is unconstitutional. That can’t be achieved without violating or changing the Constitution. It would be a horrendous mistake for so many reasons. I am saddened by these terrible events as much as anyone else but if we want to address these events we need to look for another way. There are already more than enough gun laws on the books, making more does nothing positive. An assault weapons or magazine ban is nothing more than some useless Liberal trophy and it will cost us decent middle of the road citizens who we will drive to the far right. It is a terrible move. Please take the advice of a 100% Progressive ally who happens to understand guns and the “gun culture”. All we are doing is restricting individual rights of law abiding citzens just as bad as if we suggested gay marriage was OK for “certain types of gays” or some women could have the right to free choice. You are being as foolish as the right wing nut jobs who’s politics you oppose. Get your head out of your butt.” (Sources: 1NewDay, Newsvine.com)